On 25 July 2013 23:11, Nick Jennings <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Melvin Carvalho <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> On 25 July 2013 19:19, Klaus Wuestefeld <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> People wont authenticate multiple facets, will they? >>> >> >> Sure they will, at the moment we have a world split between http profiles >> and email addresses. http is more popular, largely due to facebook, but >> there's other systems such as tent, indieweb, foaf etc. email is pushed >> hard by google, microsoft, yahoo and friends. >> >> > I think this is painting with a wide brush and bending reality a bit. It > seems people most against email addresses tend to do this thing where they > compare it to http. It comparing apples to oranges. >
Im unsure what point you are trying to make here. Are you saying that I'm deluded or that I'm against email. I would hope neither is the case. > > There is no "split" between HTTP profiles and email addresses. An email > address is a target to send a message to. A profile is a display of > information. They serve different purposes and they do not compete. > They do indeed. Until people decide to overload them to *also* be your identity. Which is the case. > > Email is not "pushed hard" by anyone, at least to my knowledge. It's like > saying mailboxes are being pushed. If you don't want a mailbox, you don't > have to have one, you won't get any mail though. > I suggest you look at the big email providers statistics, a few players control a lot of the market > > > >> If you had to choose 1 of the two http is superior imho because you can >> derefernce http to find more information, you cant dereference email >> easily. Additionally, a normal user can create a profile page, but running >> an email server is normally an enterprise level task. >> >> > Creating a profile page is not akin to running a mail server. That's > simply ridiculous. You could compare running a web-server to running a mail > server. Both of which require sysadmin skills to do correctly. > Sorry? I said that creating a web page is easier than running an email server, why do you find that ridiculous? > > > >> Strangely, it seems to be a religious war for the last 5 years, and I >> have no idea why. It has slowed us down, and unnecessary. >> > > I agree, I think it's misrepresentation that rubs some people the wrong > way. I'm in no way involved in this 'religious war' but I do find it absurd > when people make sweeping statements about how email and HTTP are somehow > competing for user identity, and that email is obsolete. > Are you now saying that I said email is obsolete? If so I think you are putting words in my mouth. > > > The point here is that it does not have to be either/or, it can be AND. >> You can imagine other facets in future being added such as telephone, key, >> name, fingerprint, qr code or whatever. >> >> > +1 > > >> As it happens, authentication is rare, and normally happens as a >> one-off. After that an unguessable string is normally shared between >> parties (eg in a cookie) to mean you dont have to authenticate again. >> People often login today by clicking a button. If your public key is in >> your client, you just need to click and not type or remember anything. >> >> Authentication and identity are different concepts which are commonly >> grouped together. It's rare that people look up other people by email when >> adding a friend, they will use the real name, and this is also displayed on >> your wall etc. >> >> > Facebook and all other major social networks have a "find your friends - > import your contacts list" to search for people you may know via their > email address. Again, you seem to be trying to underplay the importance of > email, by extreme generalization of very isolated use-cases, to make a > point. > > I honestly think you are trolling now. I've already stated that facebook can look by name, email and telephone. People tend to choose real name. I'll leave it at that...
